If we take your "revolution should only be supported if the government ceases to function" stance to its logical conclusion, that means you are against the American, French, Vietnamese, Cuban, Russian, and Chinese revolutions, right? Even if previous conditions were misery, because the government still functioned, they should have stuck with it? I don't agree that the pragmatic stance is to continue voting democrat, because disparity is rising and Capitalism is crumbling. Democrats will not support policies that could endanger their own power, and that extends to Capitalists. I think you confuse "pragmatic" for "easy."

Secondly, Marxists are revolutionary, not Blanquist. Revolution requires the support of the masses. Secondly, this revolutionary shift in power cannot be held at the ballot box, because the Capitalist State supports the bourgeoisie. The only candidates you can vote for and the only parties allowed anywhere near power are the ones that serve purely the interests of Capital. That's why not only is voting reform extremely difficult to get, but also would not change the necessity of revolution.

Thirdly, on your analysis of why voting reform like RCV is not more widespread, it isn't because it isn't popular. RCV is a carrot on a string, too small in scale to ever impact anything, but just close enough that you have hope for it. Even insidiously, achieving RCV nationwide still won't stop the inevitable crumbling of Capitalism! Many other nations have RCV and yet still have nothing but right-wing establishment parties in power, because RCV fundamentally doesn't enact change, it just sounds like it could.

Fourth, you make no mention of how or why you believe Communism to be "unviable," yet fully back a system where distribution is based on arbitrary "goodness" in society. Communists argue for practical, labor-time based economic planning that can be calculated, tracked, measured, and adjusted using real world technology, and moreso argue for doing so only in areas of industry that have already advanced to monopolist syndicates and can thus be centrally planned after being publicly owned. Where is this "goodness" you speak of calculated? By what measure?

Fifth, Humans are not inherently greedy, nor would that be a problem for Socialism and Communism in the first place. Rather, human ideas are shaped by their material conditions and their definite social relations, Capitalism highlights greed and rewards it more. The Base reinforces the Superstructure, ie the Mode of Production reinforces and projects the laws, culture, and values of society, which in turn reinforces the base, slightly changing each other over time as society develops and progresses. Humans will not appear so greedy in a publicly owned economy.

Ultimately, all of your criticisms of Communism are incredibly common for those who have not read theory, as all of the ones you raised specifically were already answered over a hundred years ago. More questions have been raised since then, of course, but I think you would gain a ton from reading the theory list I made, some highlights that directly answer your questions are:

1. Reform or Revolution

2. Wage Labor and Capital and Wages, Price and Profit

3. Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism

4. Socialism: Utopian and Scientific

5. The Principles of Communism

6. The State and Revolution

And as an added measure that isn't in my reading list, Prices in a Planned Economy for more information on what Marxists advocate for with respect to how to economically plan.

I think it's almost amazing how you were able to touch on many different common areas that have been thoroughly answered by Marxists over the years quite definitively, and I mean no offense by that. I really do recommend you give it a try.